Subject: Discussion Paper DP/2013/1 A review of the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting

Transcription

1 IFRS Foundation 8 January 2014 Subject: Discussion Paper DP/2013/1 A review of the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting Dear Sirs, We thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment on the preliminary views raised in the Discussion Paper published in July We are writing to you as a group of long term investors or LTIs, which share some specific special features. An important characteristic of LTIs is that they invest and provide funding to long term projects supporting public policy and meeting stringent financial criteria. The four financial institutions contributing to this letter are the European founding Members of the Long-Term Investors Club (LTIC), namely: European Investment Bank Caisse des Dépôts Cassa Depositi e Prestiti KfW We consider that policy makers and international regulators around the world should work to create a regulatory and international accounting framework enabling financial institutions to focus more on long-term rather than short-term results, and more on investments supporting growth than on short-term profitability. In this context, we welcome the Conceptual Framework review initiated by the IASB. We have considered the various questions raised in the Discussion Paper and focus our answers on the questions that we consider crucial to ensure an appropriate framework for the standard setting process. In particular, we want to stress that there is a need to give more prominence to the business model criterion in order to provide relevant and useful information to the users of the entity s financial statements.

2 You will find our detailed answers in the annex to this letter. We remain of course available, should you wish further clarification on our opinion. Best regards, European Investment Bank Guido Bichisao Director Institutional Strategy Department Caisse des Dépôts Florence Mangin Directrice des relations institutionnelles et de la coopération européenne et internationale Cassa Depositi e Prestiti Ludovica Rizzotti Head of International Affairs KfW Bankengruppe Christian Krämer First Vice President

3 Page 1

4 Page 2

5 Page 3

6 We share the view, expressed in the Discussion Paper, that relevance and faithful representation should be considered when deciding on recognition of assets and liabilities. As stated in Paragraph 4.26 of the Discussion Paper, the Conceptual Framework should provide further guidance to help the IASB assess exceptions to recognition principles for example when recognizing an asset or a liability might not provide relevant information. We share the view that introducing explicit probability thresholds in the Conceptual Framework would reduce flexibility in standards setting and prevent that an entity s business model is properly reflected. Page 4

7 We agree with the preliminary views expressed in the Discussion Paper. Unlike the risks-and-rewards approach, the control approach avoids the need to determine whether the entity has transferred sufficient risks and rewards to derecognize the asset or the liability. In many cases this assessment would be challenging, therefore we share the view that the control approach is to be favored. Nevertheless, the derecognition approach should consider the practicability of the assessment. We believe that approach (a) and approach (b) provide more useful information than approach (c) when an entity retains a component of an asset or a liability. Page 5

8 a) We agree with the definition of equity as a residual interest that is not directly remeasured. In general, there is at least one element of equity that cannot be directly measured (e.g. where no other equity instruments are issued, ordinary shares are not measured directly but as the difference between assets and liabilities). However this definition might create inconsistency with some secondary equity claims that, accordingly to the Discussion Paper, should be measured directly. Only primary equity can be considered as residual. b) We agree with the definition of a liability as an obligation to deliver economic resources (the strict obligation approach). Under this approach all the equity claims are therefore classified as equity. Page 6

9 As a consequence of the definition of liability (i.e. obligation to deliver economic resources) the obligation to issue equity is not a liability, because an own equity instrument is not an economic resource of the issuer. Such an obligation is one form of a secondary equity claim, as stated in paragraph 5.7 (c) (a secondary equity claim is a present right or a present obligation to receive or deliver another equity claim). We broadly agree with this conclusion, but we believe that, because of the differences between primary and secondary equity, it might be necessary to enhance the disclosure about the different classes of equity. We support the view that obligations that arise only on liquidation of the reporting entity should not be treated as liabilities, given that financial statements are prepared on a going concern basis. For example, according to this view, payments to ordinary shareholders on liquidation are not liabilities. c) d) In case of no equity instruments issued, we believe that treating the most subordinated class of instruments as if it were an equity claim would not always provide a useful and faithful representation. This approach is similar to that of paragraphs 16A to 16F of current IAS 32 that in some cases have led to confusion and inconsistency. Page 7

10 We broadly agree with IASB s views expressed under question 11. In particular, we fully support the IASB s preliminary views that (1) a single measurement basis for all assets and liabilities may not provide the most relevant information for users of financial statements and (2) when selecting the measurement Page 8

11 to use for a particular item, the IASB should consider what information that measurement will produce in both the statement of financial position, and the statement(s) of profit or loss and OCI. In our opinion, it is key to consider how a particular asset or liability will impact the entity s future cash flows and give more prominence to the business model of the entity in determining the appropriate measurement bases for assets/liabilities. As it currently stands, the instruments characteristics are given too much primacy as compared to the business model. We elaborate further on the business model concept in our response to question 23. Furthermore, we are convinced that limiting the number of different measurements used should be not be one of the prime IASB s purpose. Indeed, as mentioned above, we consider that the key objective of measurement is to ensure the right measurement in the right situation, or, in other words, that the measurement required for assets/liabilities conveys the right information to the users of financial statements from the entity s business model viewpoint. In our opinion, requiring the same measurement method for identical assets used with different aims and contributing to future cash flows in different ways is harmful to the quality of financial information. Page 9

12 In line with the points mentioned above, we agree that it is necessary to distinguish measurement bases of assets depending on the way an asset is used (i.e. depending on the way this asset will generate cash flows in line with the entity s business model) and therefore, in this respect, we support the IASB s preliminary views. However, we believe that the four situations described in the Discussion Paper do not cover all the possible ways in which an asset contributes to future cash flows. More specifically, concerning the category b) ( assets contribute directly to future cash flows by being sold ), IASB s proposal does not distinguish assets held to be sold in a short term from assets held in a longer term perspective. As such, the categories defined in the Discussion Paper do not take into account all the possibilities where financial instruments can contribute to future cash flows of an entity. As mentioned on several previous occasions, we consider appropriate to create an additional category for financial assets that are held as investments in a medium or long term perspective and that do not meet the definition of either the amortized cost category or the fair value through profit and loss category. Financial instruments included in this category would be measured at the lowest between the acquisition cost and value in use. Reversal of impairment through profit and loss should be allowed. The concept of value in use is already defined by IAS 36 Paragraph 6 : Value in use is the present value of the future cash flows expected to be derived from an asset. In our opinion, this definition could be extended to financial assets when the business model of the entity is to hold these assets for a long period. Under the above mentioned accounting rules, the income statement would therefore truly reflect the business model of entities holding financial instruments (including equity) over the long term. As such the key indicator of the performance measure would not be distorted by short term fluctuations of unrealized gains and losses. The objective of the proposed accounting policy above is not to ignore the market value of the relevant assets at the reporting date which could also be provided in the notes to the financial statements in full transparency. In order to reflect the business model of LTIs, some have proposed in the past to maintain the current AFS portfolio while modifying the current rules for impairment, including reversal in profit and loss. However, this proposal raises the issue of equity volatility (please refer also to our response to questions 19-21). Nevertheless, this solution could be an acceptable compromise, in that financial statements would therefore provide market value information into the statement of financial position while avoiding distortion to the financial performance communicated in the statement of profit or loss by transitory gains and losses. Page 10

13 We agree with the preliminary views expressed in the Discussion Paper. We agree with the preliminary views expressed in the Discussion Paper. Page 11

14 No further comments. Page 12

15 We welcome the IASB initiative to address presentation and disclosure aspects in the Conceptual Framework but we consider that a closer link should be made between the business model concept and the objective of primary financial statements. Currently, the information provided to shareholders in the statement of financial position and in the income statement does not always appropriately reflect the business model of the entity s activity. As a consequence, preparers need to create separate documents to explain to shareholders how the strategy has been translated into the financial statements. Over time this has led to too much and too complex information as well as, at times, misleading information being provided to the shareholders. It would be useful to simplify the disclosures so that only key and relevant information is conveyed to the users. We agree with the proposed communication principles in particular point (a) in paragraph 7.50 of the Discussion Paper i.e. promote the disclosure of useful information that is entity specific. As mentioned above, we consider that the business model concept should also be considered in that respect. We have elaborated further on the business model concept in our answer to question 23. Page 13

16 We agree with IASB s view that the conceptual framework should require a total or subtotal for profit or loss. Indeed, we are convinced that profit or loss remains the main indicator used by many stakeholders to asses an entity s performance. Our opinion is that all items previously presented in other comprehensive income should be recognized subsequently in profit or loss (ie recycled), except in the rare cases when such a recycle would not provide relevant information on the entity s performance. We agree with the idea that recycling protects the integrity of profit or losses as the primary source of information about the return an entity has made on its economics resources. In the context of the issue we have raised above in our response to question 12 i.e. financial instruments held for a long term for subsequent sale, if the proposed accounting rules would be to recognise changes in market value of such instruments in OCI, then it is critical to define the right mechanism of recycle. Indeed, selling these assets without recycling previously recognized gains/losses from OCI to profit or loss leads to denying the very concept of profit and loss and therefore, Page 14

17 which would be in contradiction with the principle mentioned above in question 19 i.e. that the profit or loss remains the main indicator used by many stakeholders to asses an entity s performance. We support approach 2B. In particular, we agree with principle 3 under which an item that has previously been recognized in OCI should be reclassified to profit and loss when, and only when, the reclassification results in relevant information. We believe that this principle should be applied by considering the entity s business model. From our perspective i.e. long term investor business model, we believe that all of the following asset characteristics stated in Paragraph 8.88 of the Discussion Paper are met for recognition in OCI: the asset will be realized over the long term, the current period remeasurement is likely to significantly change over the holding period of the asset, and recognizing the current period remeasurement in OCI enhances the relevance and understandability of profit or loss as the primary indicator of the return that the entity has made. Therefore we believe that the Conceptual Framework should include a concept for profit or loss and recycling that is considered in conjunction with an entity s business model. Page 15

18 We consider that the concept of prudence should be an element of the Conceptual Framework and the basis for the development or revision of accounting Standards. The reasons put forward by the IASB to eliminate this concept from the Conceptual Framework included that deliberately understating assets or overstating liabilities in one period often leads to overstating financial performance in later periods however, recent history has shown that it would have been appropriate to introduce more prudence in estimates. Page 16

19 The business model concept should be a key element of the Conceptual Framework and should be the basis of the development or revision of accounting Standards. As a long term investor with a specific business model, we consider that to adequately portray the economic reality of our activities, more prominence should be given to the business model concept from which the accounting treatment of transactions should then be derived. This implies that the Conceptual framework should make explicit reference to the business model when setting or revising accounting standards. The need to give more prominence to the business model was recently highlighted in the European Commission long-term investment green paper consultation. In that context, EFRAG conducted a public consultation on characterising long-term investment business models from financial reporting perspective and recommended, on the basis of the input received, that any accounting requirements applicable to long-term investment entities should not ignore the interaction between the liabilities and the related assets when selecting measurement bases and defining performance reporting requirements. The business model concept would therefore be the most helpful criterion in defining measurement. For example, in the context of a long term investment activities business model, we consider that fair value is not the appropriate measure; it creates artificial volatility in that transitory unrealised results will not normally materialise. The business model concept would also be useful in defining disclosures. Again in the example of long term investment activities, we believe that a more comprehensive analytical presentation could be put in place to help the readers better understand and Page 17

20 identify such investments. Disclosure of transitory unrealised results could be done in the notes and would therefore avoid artificial volatility impacting the entity s results. Such approach would also be more transparent. We consider that the IASB should define the business model concept in general and recognise the long term investment business model in particular. Even if this is far from straightforward, a proper definition of long-term investment with their specific features and specific accounting rules is required to provide a faithful representation of the economic reality. Page 18

21 Page 19